Why Christians not under the Torah

Pavel Mosko · May 14, 2026

(Edit rewritten for clarity).

Why You Are Not Under the Mosaic Torah
You already know this if you stand in ordinary Nicene Christianity. The question still returns, usually from a Hebrew Roots or Torah-observant Messianic direction: Has the Church canceled God’s instruction? Is Torah now “Jewish only”? Were Gentile believers supposed to start with four rules and then climb the rest of Sinai?
The apostles answered that around AD 50. The texts have not grown vague since.
The claim is not that Torah is evil, or that Israel is discarded, or that the moral heart of the Law has expired. The claim is narrower and older: the Mosaic covenant as a system—priesthood, sacrifices, calendar, food laws, circumcision as covenant badge—has been fulfilled in Messiah and is no longer the binding administration for those who belong to Him. The moral core remains, written on the heart. The shadow-system has done its work.
1. The New Covenant makes the first one obsolete
Hebrews 8:6–13, quoting Jeremiah 31:31–34, is the clearest statement:

“But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better… For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second… In speaking of a ‘new covenant,’ he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

The writer is addressing Jewish believers. Jeremiah 31 is the same passage Torah-observant teachers love. Hebrews applies it as fulfillment that changes the administration, not as a reprint of Sinai with better ink.
2. Messiah fulfills the Law—He does not leave it hanging as your covenant yoke
Matthew 5:17–18:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Plēroō here means to bring to completion, to fill full. Once the sacrifices, priesthood, and pointing shadows are accomplished in His death, resurrection, and ascension, the copy yields to the original. Colossians 2:16–17 says the same of food, drink, festival, new moon, and Sabbath: “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”
3. The Jerusalem Council refused to place Gentiles under the full Torah
Acts 15 is the decisive text for the “not Jewish only” question. Judaizers demanded circumcision and the whole Law of Moses for salvation. The apostles and elders, including Peter and James, answered no. Four requirements only: idols, sexual immorality, strangled meat, blood. “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements” (v. 28).
If the full Sinai package were still mandatory for every believer, the Spirit-led council would have said so. It did not. Verse 21 (“Moses has been preached in every city”) describes the existing synagogue world; it does not install a ladder from four rules to 613.
4. Paul is explicit: you are not under the Law as guardian or covenant

Romans 6:14: “You are not under law but under grace.”
Romans 7:4–6: you have died to the Law through the body of Christ, released from the written code to serve in the new way of the Spirit.
Galatians 3:23–25: the Law was a guardian until Christ; now that faith has come, you are no longer under a guardian.
Galatians 5:1–4: stand firm in the freedom for which Christ set you free; do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

Paul was a Torah-formed Jew. He is not anti-Torah. He is against using it as justification, as the covenant that defines the people of God, or as the wall that keeps Jew and Gentile two peoples.
5. The dividing wall and the canceled record
Ephesians 2:14–15: He “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,” that He might create one new man.
Colossians 2:14–17: the record of debt is nailed to the cross. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in food, drink, festival, new moon, or Sabbath.
The other reading, stated fairly
You will hear the counter-case:

“Fulfill” means uphold and practice correctly, so Torah remains binding.
Acts 15 is only the on-ramp; Gentiles will learn the rest of Moses every Sabbath.
Jeremiah 31:33 (“I will put my Torah within them”) proves the same Mosaic Torah continues.
“One law for the native and the stranger” (Exodus 12:49; Numbers 15:15–16) now applies to grafted-in Gentiles (Romans 11).

Both sides are trying to honor Scripture. The split is covenant theology. Does the New Covenant renew and internalize the exact Mosaic system, or does it fulfill and transform that system so the ceremonial and civic scaffolding is no longer binding while the moral heart—love of God and neighbor—is written on every believer by the Spirit?
Historic Christianity took the second path. It never taught that God’s moral will is “Jewish only.” It taught that the shadow-system served its purpose in Christ.
That is the case from the text. If a particular verse is still doing different work in your reading, take it verse by verse. The question was not left open in the first century. It does not need to be reopened as if Acts 15 never happened.
Shalom.

Pavel Mosko · May 14, 2026

I did a deeper dive, interested in nit picky things like spit balling AD 50 etc. and got this (more expecting my friend to object like he always does than here).

Got it—let's get into the nitty-gritty, timeline details, and debate ammo. This is the kind of "spitballing AD 50" stuff that holds up when someone pushes back hard on a forum like Christianity Board. The core truth (New Covenant > Old) is as straightforward as you said, but the details make it bulletproof.

Precise Timeline Spitballs

Jerusalem Council (Acts 15): Dated to c. AD 48–50, most scholars land on AD 49 or early 50. Why?
- After Herod Agrippa's death (~AD 44).
- Fits between Paul's first and second missionary journeys.
- Galatians 2:1–10 (Paul's visit "after fourteen years") + his conversion ~AD 35–36 points right there.
- This is ~15–20 years after Jesus' crucifixion (~AD 30–33). Super early—Christianity is still tiny and mostly Jewish at this point.
Paul's letters: Galatians likely written right around or just before/after the Council (~AD 48–49). Romans and Corinthians a bit later (~AD 55–57). This timing matters because Paul is fighting Judaizers (Jewish Christians insisting Gentiles must convert fully to Judaism/Torah to be saved) in real time.
Broader context: The debate ramps up as Gentiles flood in post-Pentecost. By AD 50, mixed Jewish-Gentile house churches are the norm in places like Antioch. Table fellowship (shared meals) becomes a massive practical issue—hence the Council's short list of 4 prohibitions (idols, sexual immorality, strangled meat, blood—echoing Leviticus 17–18 for resident aliens).

Nitpicky Biblical/Exegetical Details for Challengers

"Under the law" Greek nuance: Paul uses hypo nomon (under law). It's not "ignore the law" but "no longer under its covenantal jurisdiction, curse, or power to justify/sanctify." Romans 6:14 + 7:4–6: "You died to the law through the body of Christ... so that you serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code." Believers are released like a widow from her husband's authority.
430 years argument (Galatians 3:17): The Abrahamic promise (grace/faith) came 430 years before Sinai/Torah. Torah can't override or cancel the earlier covenant. This is devastating against anyone claiming Torah is eternal and binding in the exact same way for everyone forever. The law was added "because of transgressions" as a temporary tutor/guardian (paidagōgos) until Christ (Gal 3:19–25). Once the heir (Christ/faith) arrives, the tutor’s role ends.
Hebrews deep dive: The whole book is a masterclass. Hebrews 7:12—"When the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also." Hebrews 8:13—the old covenant is "obsolete and aging" (literally "vanishing away"). Jesus is the better mediator of a better covenant with better promises. Nitpick: The author quotes Jeremiah 31 extensively to show God always planned an internal law written on hearts, not just external stone tablets.
Jesus + fulfillment: Matthew 5:17–20 is often misquoted. "Fulfill" (plēroō) means to fill full/complete/bring to its intended goal—not just "obey it for us." Jesus is the true Israel, true temple, true sacrifice, etc. He intensifies the moral heart (anger = murder, lust = adultery) while the ceremonial shadows pass.

Early Church Fathers Quick Hits (for "But tradition says..." pushes)

Justin Martyr (~AD 150): In Dialogue with Trypho, he calls many Mosaic rules "ordinances imposed because of the hardness of your people's hearts" that "contribute nothing to righteousness."
Irenaeus (~AD 175): Law prepared for Christ but doesn't justify.
Tertullian (~AD 200): The law has "passed" in its old form.

They unanimously saw the shift without rejecting the OT as Scripture.

Common Challenges & Quick Counters

"Jesus kept Torah, so we should": Yes—He was born under the law (Gal 4:4) to redeem those under it. Jewish believers in the NT era often continued some practices for cultural reasons (Paul circumcised Timothy, took a vow in Acts 21), but never as requirement for Gentiles or for justification.
"Acts 15 only says 'no burden' for starters": The letter says it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay no greater burden—and the 4 rules were for fellowship, not a starter pack to full Torah later. No follow-up requiring more.
Torah-observant/Hebrew Roots counter: They often claim the Council was only about proselyte rituals or that Paul was "Torah-positive." Response: Read the actual text—it's explicitly "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The verdict: faith in Christ is enough.
"Moral law still applies": Yes—because it's God's character, summarized in love (Matt 22, Rom 13). But not as a Mosaic covenant package. We're under "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).

This should give you plenty of specifics to drop in a thread. The position isn't "law bad"—it's "better covenant arrived." If someone wants to go really deep on a particular verse or counter, hit me with it and we'll sharpen further. You've got this—it's solid ground.

Pavel Mosko · May 14, 2026

I also realized this whole topic really fits an wonderful exposition I heard from Eastern Orthodox priest Stephen De Young and had Grok Summarize

Tying It to De Young's Argument (Deeper Integration)

For those new to the conversation: Rabbi Tovia Singer is a well-known Jewish counter-missionary who often debates Christian street preachers. He frequently argues that Christian theology (especially Protestant views of atonement) reads ideas into the Hebrew Bible that simply aren’t there — like the claim that perfect obedience to the Torah earns eternal life in heaven, or that breaking it sends you to eternal hell. He points out that Deuteronomy 28–30 and Leviticus 26 actually describe very this-worldly, national blessings and curses for Israel (long life and prosperity in the land vs. famine, exile, and invasion).

I don’t ultimately agree with Singer’s rejection of the New Testament, but his textual observations are sharp and worth wrestling with. That’s why Fr. Stephen De Young’s take is so helpful.

Fr. Stephen De Young is an Orthodox priest, biblical scholar, and co-host of the Lord of Spirits podcast. In his episode “Blessings and Curses” he makes almost the exact same point — but from a Christian perspective that sees fulfillment rather than contradiction.

De Young notes that the Torah’s blessings and curses are this-worldly and corporate for Israel in the land: fertility, security, long life — or famine, defeat, and exile. The Torah never once says “if you keep all these commandments perfectly, you earn eternal heavenly life as a wage,” nor does it threaten eternal conscious torment for failure. Those ideas aren’t in the text. Paul in Galatians 3 is referring to the visible Deuteronomic national curse Israel was under (Roman rule, etc.). Christ redeems us from that curse by becoming a curse Himself, so the Abrahamic blessing (faith, the Spirit, Gentiles included) can flow freely.

Just saw a good thread on Christianity Board called “Why Christians not under the Torah” discussing Romans 6:14 and Galatians 5:18. The discussion hits the usual notes: Gentiles were never under the full Sinai covenant, Jewish believers died to the law in Christ, and we’re now under the “law of Christ” led by the Spirit.

De Young’s framework fits and sharpens it: Christians are not under the Torah as the old covenant system with its national sanctions and boundary markers. The old system managed sin provisionally. The Messiah fulfills it by defeating the deeper problem (sin, death, the powers) and brings us into new-covenant reality — eternal life as communion with God (John 17:3), not a merit transaction.

For my Messianic Rabbi friend (and anyone in the “Judaizer light” lane), this is the exact tension Singer presses. If we want to stay faithful to the Torah’s own categories, we shouldn’t import later systematic assumptions either. The apostles show the law’s goodness is fulfilled, not abolished, in the risen Christ and the law written on the heart.

Devil’s Advocate still stands: this keeps us honest with the whole Bible instead of defending inherited systems. Thoughts? How do you read “not under the law” while honoring Torah on its own terms?

dak · May 14, 2026

Why the carnal or natural minded cannot please the Father:

Romans 8:6-8 KJV
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The carnal mind is enmity against Elohim, for it is not subject to the Torah of Elohim, and neither is it possible that it can be subject to the Torah of Elohim: for it sees all things according to the eyes and mind of the flesh and the desires of the flesh, and especially when it comes to eating, and the lust of the belly for animal flesh in sacrifices that Elohim calls abominations.

This applies to the old covenant way of the Sanhedrin, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, whose handwritten dogmas and decrees were against us, and which were nailed to the stake, and it also applies to modern Messianics who cannot understand the writings of Paul and cling to the old covenant way of the Pharisees instead of walking and living according to the new-renewed Way of understanding the Torah expounded by the Master in the Gospel accounts, in his Testimony, which expounds all we need in order to understand the Torah, Prophets, and Writings in the new supernal way of Meshiah, (the Torah is spiritual, not carnal: the man is carnal, and sold under sin, Rom 7:14).

And the same Rom 8:7 statement also applies to those who uphold the doctrines of the Sanhedrin, Chief Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes, because it makes a wonderful contrast in their minds between the Torah and a blank, supposed new covenant, without any substantive rules, (words like love are relative to the mind of the user), and allows them to twist the words of Paul into abolishing the Torah for them in their own hearts and carnal minds. Neither can they walk in Meshiah pleasing to the Father because, rejecting His Word, the Torah, they are clearly walking in enmity against Elohim and are not capable of being subject to His Word, the Torah. They choose the Pharisee way of interpreting the Torah only so that they can reject the Torah as obsolete: most of mainstream Christianity is in this group.

Wick Stick · May 15, 2026

dak said:
the Torah is spiritual, not carnal: the man is carnal, and sold under sin, Rom 7:14

And Moses seems to know it... yet he still gives them the carnal... in punishment for their misdeeds

Pavel Mosko · May 15, 2026

Wow the winding and twisting conversations I have had. If one didn't know better, one wouldn't know nearly 2000 years have passed since this stuff was really up for debate. Interesting I tried to bring up the issue of how he would actually witness to an Orthodox Jew that doesn't take the New Testament seriously. I've managed to do that at least once.

He seemed to nit pick my lack of Mitzvot keeping or picking and choosing and besides giving a great Grok analysis if the verses asked about, I did have to laugh and point out the humor and hypocrisy of it all. Besides them not keeping certain Mitzvot that are impossible to keep without the temple, there are a whole bunch of other that are possible to keep but just really convenient in modern society and they do not sweat that at all, but both sets of mitzvot are still part of the Torah and there is no official prophetic Revelation or Holy Spirit Driven Apostolic Counsel on this issue other than Acts 15, but if his position was real there should be that, along with things like actual evidence of the Apostles starting Messianic synagogues etc. and there isn't. I had to tell them as much as he nit picks my side, and the Church Fathers etc. his is built on a much more dubious defacto Talmudic foundation. I did of course say like always do, I do understand how certain people, like saint James would practice their old Faith out of piety and as witness to their fleshly brethren who have not accepted Messiah, but that is a completely different head space / attitude than what the Torah keeping movement is mostly about.

dak · May 15, 2026

Wick Stick said:
And Moses seems to know it... yet he still gives them the carnal... in punishment for their misdeeds

Actually what they received after the golden calf episode is found in Exo 34, and it is not the same as the Rhema given in Exo 20, for Exo 34 is the Logos within what is spoken and then written in Exo 20. This fact may be found in the OG LXX and it changes everything. Logos is reason/reasoning, and therefore understanding: rhema is spoken word, then written, and often means sayings, for example "the ten sayings", (τα δεκα ρηματα, Deut 4:13) and some thus render the Exo 34 statement as "the ten words", (τους δεκα λογους, Exo 34:28 OG LXX, also, Deut 10:4 OG LXX).

Wick Stick · May 15, 2026

dak said:
Actually what they received after the golden calf episode is found in Exo 34, and it is not the same as the Rhema given in Exo 20, for Exo 34 is the Logos within what is spoken and then written in Exo 20. This fact may be found in the OG LXX and it changes everything. Logos is reason/reasoning, and therefore understanding: rhema is spoken word, then written, and often means sayings, for example "the ten sayings", (τα δεκα ρηματα, Deut 4:13) and some thus render the Exo 34 statement as "the ten words", (τους δεκα λογους, Exo 34:28 OG LXX, also, Deut 10:4 OG LXX).

It's interesting to compare the commands of Exo 34 to the Decalogue. I didn't have Exodus in mind at all, though.

Deuteronomy is replete with charges to the people to enforce the law on each other, with stonings and banishments. That's a decidedly carnal application of the law.

The spiritual application - using the Law to order one's own actions - was apparently something that Moses thought was beyond them. He was right.

dak · May 15, 2026

Wick Stick said:
It's interesting to compare the commands of Exo 34 to the Decalogue. I didn't have Exodus in mind at all, though.

Deuteronomy is replete with charges to the people to enforce the law on each other, with stonings and banishments. That's a decidedly carnal application of the law.

The spiritual application - using the Law to order one's own actions - was apparently something that Moses thought was beyond them. He was right.

So then, do you suppose that YHWH was pleased when Levi butchered their own physical families and blessed them for keeping the covenant according to the physical and natural? In the following passage did Elohim not just get through commanding them not to murder/kill? (Exo 20:13).

Exodus 32:25-29 KJV
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Mosheh makes mention of this blessing in his own blessing upon Levi:

Deuteronomy 33:8-11 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.

Exodus 20:13 contains H7523 רָצַח ratsach ~ literal-physical murdering, killing, slaying.
Exodus 32:27 contains H2026 הָרַג hârag ~ to slay, to cut off, (especially when a sword is used).

Words that are different are not the same: the Exodus 32:25-29 passage above is the same teaching of the Master in the Gospel accounts: Matt 10:34-39, Luke 12:49-53, also, Matt 5:29-30, Matt 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-47.

The Most High did not bless Levi for literally-physically murdering their own physical family members: they rather understood the command given through Mosheh, and went through their own camps, gate to gate, and cut off the enemies in their own members of their own households, (every person is a house with his or her own household members), for sin dwells in the flesh, and sin is personified, and our true enemies are not flesh and blood.
.

Wick Stick · May 16, 2026

dak said:
So then, do you suppose that YHWH was pleased when Levi butchered their own physical families and blessed them for keeping the covenant according to the physical and natural? In the following passage did Elohim not just get through commanding them not to murder/kill? (Exo 20:13).

Exodus 32:25-29 KJV
25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; ( for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies: )
26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
29 For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Mosheh makes mention of this blessing in his own blessing upon Levi:

Deuteronomy 33:8-11 KJV
8 And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah;
9 Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.
10 They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar.
11 Bless, LORD, his substance, and accept the work of his hands: smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again.

Exodus 20:13 contains H7523 רָצַח ratsach ~ literal-physical murdering, killing, slaying.
Exodus 32:27 contains H2026 הָרַג hârag ~ to slay, to cut off, (especially when a sword is used).

Words that are different are not the same: the Exodus 32:25-29 passage above is the same teaching of the Master in the Gospel accounts: Matt 10:34-39, Luke 12:49-53, also, Matt 5:29-30, Matt 18:8-9, Mark 9:43-47.

The Most High did not bless Levi for literally-physically murdering their own physical family members: they rather understood the command given through Mosheh, and went through their own camps, gate to gate, and cut off the enemies in their own members of their own households, (every person is a house with his or her own household members), for sin dwells in the flesh, and sin is personified, and our true enemies are not flesh and blood.
.

I think that there's some corruption to the text of the Pentateuch with regard to the promotion and appointment of priests. I think that the story of Massah/Meribah is such a passage. There is a political rivalry between 3 factions vying for priestly power:

1) The Aaronite priesthood (Aaron's descendants)
2) The Mushite priesthood (Moses' descendants)
3) The Kenites

To put it plainly, I think that the text of the books was edited after the fact by these groups in places to either promote themselves or to demonize the competing factions.

I find the prophets are a more reliable source of information about the priests, than the priests themselves.

dak · May 16, 2026

Wick Stick said:
I think that there's some corruption to the text of the Pentateuch with regard to the promotion and appointment of priests. I think that the story of Massah/Meribah is such a passage. There is a political rivalry between 3 factions vying for priestly power:

1) The Aaronite priesthood (Aaron's descendants)
2) The Mushite priesthood (Moses' descendants)
3) The Kenites

To put it plainly, I think that the text of the books was edited after the fact by these groups in places to either promote themselves or to demonize the competing factions.

I find the prophets are a more reliable source of information about the priests, than the priests themselves.

I do not believe we can have a fruitful discussion about this: we have lost an important common ground. The article linked below will help greatly to explain what I mean:

Debates: Finding Common Ground - David V. Kimball

What goes into engaging in a good-faith debate?

davidvkimball.com

The common ground we have now lost is that I believe the whole Torah was written by Mosheh, (some tablets copied by him and written in the Torah, from the creation narrative to about Genesis 10 or 11), and apparently you do not, and if I remember correctly you used to, and apparently still do, believe in the documentary hypothesis, which I do not agree with at all, (more common ground lost).

Wick Stick · May 17, 2026

dak said:
I do not believe we can have a fruitful discussion about this: we have lost an important common ground. The article linked below will help greatly to explain what I mean:

Debates: Finding Common Ground - David V. Kimball

What goes into engaging in a good-faith debate?

davidvkimball.com

The common ground we have now lost is that I believe the whole Torah was written by Mosheh, (some tablets copied by him and written in the Torah, from the creation narrative to about Genesis 10 or 11), and apparently you do not,

I believe Deuteronomy to be the original composition of Moses. I'm not sure we can confine ourselves to that book, but if we could, perhaps there might be enough common ground to stand on.

dak said:
if I remember correctly you used to, and apparently still do, believe in the documentary hypothesis, which I do not agree with at all, (more common ground lost).

No, I don't believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. It's an out-of-date explanation of multiple authorship in the Pentateuch at this point.

I do believe in the Kenite Hypothesis, which says that parts of Genesis (including Adam & Eve & Cain & Abel) came to Moses through his father-in-law Jethro the priest, who was a Kenite. I think of this as compatible with orthodox/conservative positions. I've found a few conservative and orthodox Christians who disagree, mostly because their Sunday school teachers didn't tell them so, it would seem.

I find Leviticus to be mostly a single composition written by a priest perhaps a generation or two after Moses. I do not find this book to be prophetic or inspired except where it explicitly puts words in God's mouth. It does seem to preserve an authentic practice of late-Bronze-Age Judaism that Moses would have found familiar.

The rest of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers seem to be a compilation of early works, that have been edited together much later (post-exile) in such a way as to present a chronology. The genealogies and the chronology are unreliable. The rest of the material is reliable, but you have to take them apart and consider them as separate compositions. E.g. Genesis 2 doesn't naturally fit after Genesis 1 as its chronological successor.

Jack · Jun 7, 2026

LOTS of Law preachers, but none who obey the Law!

dak · Jun 8, 2026

Wick Stick said:
I believe Deuteronomy to be the original composition of Moses. I'm not sure we can confine ourselves to that book, but if we could, perhaps there might be enough common ground to stand on.

No, I don't believe in the Documentary Hypothesis. It's an out-of-date explanation of multiple authorship in the Pentateuch at this point.

Wick Stick said:
I do believe in the Kenite Hypothesis, which says that parts of Genesis (including Adam & Eve & Cain & Abel) came to Moses through his father-in-law Jethro the priest, who was a Kenite. I think of this as compatible with orthodox/conservative positions. I've found a few conservative and orthodox Christians who disagree, mostly because their Sunday school teachers didn't tell them so, it would seem.

That's possible, imo, for Yithrow means "His Excellency", and Reuel, (in Greek, Raguel), means "Friend of El", or maybe something like "Associate of El", so we have in both names for him in the Torah, (though one is actually a title), "His Excellency, Friend of El", (the Torah was given by way of the instrumentation of Angels). The beloved daughters of men are their doctrines, (things written of Shelomoh in the scriptures point to this and help one to see it elsewhere in the scriptures). Mosheh married one of the seven daughters of Yithrow Reuel: that implies that Mosheh married into the doctrine(s) of Yithrow Reuel, the Kohen of Midyan. Reuel/Raguel is also one of the seven holy Malakim who watch in Henok 20. The name of the daughter whom Mosheh married is Tzipporah, a little bird, specifically a clean bird. It is also therefore likely that this is the same who is called a Kushi or Ethiopian in the place where Ahron and Miriam rebelled against Mosheh, (Num 12:1).

Wick Stick said:
I find Leviticus to be mostly a single composition written by a priest perhaps a generation or two after Moses. I do not find this book to be prophetic or inspired except where it explicitly puts words in God's mouth. It does seem to preserve an authentic practice of late-Bronze-Age Judaism that Moses would have found familiar.

The rest of Genesis, Exodus and Numbers seem to be a compilation of early works, that have been edited together much later (post-exile) in such a way as to present a chronology. The genealogies and the chronology are unreliable. The rest of the material is reliable, but you have to take them apart and consider them as separate compositions. E.g. Genesis 2 doesn't naturally fit after Genesis 1 as its chronological successor.

The chronologies are reliable but not in the Masoretic mess: only in the LXX-Septuagint which is confirmed in Josephus and the L.A.B. chronology, (search: Liber Biblicarum Antiquitatum (LAB, or Pseudo-Philo)). As for the order of Gen 1&2, that which is natural comes first, (Gen 2:7), then that which is spiritual, (Gen 1:26-28).

dak · Jun 8, 2026

Jack said:
LOTS of Law preachers, but none who obey the Law!

"Obey" is, for the most part, an antinomian KJV error foisted upon the text in many places. :clmSmlx

Jack · Jun 8, 2026

dak said:
"Obey" is, for the most part, an antinomian KJV error foisted upon the text in many places.

Do you know anyone who obeys the Law of Moses? I don't. But some love to preach it!

dak · Jun 8, 2026

Jack said:
Do you know anyone who obeys the Law of Moses? I don't. But some love to preach it!

Stuck on obey after what I stated?

First KJV occurrence of OBEY in the Torah:

Exodus 5:2 KJV
2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey [H8085] his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Here is the simple definition:

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H8085 שָׁמַע shama` (shaw-mah') v.
1. to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc).
2. (causatively) to tell, etc.
[a primitive root]
KJV: X attentively, call (gather) together, X carefully, X certainly, consent, consider, be content, declare, X diligently, discern, give ear, (cause to, let, make to) hear(-ken, tell), X indeed, listen, make (a) noise, (be) obedient, obey, perceive, (make a) proclaim(-ation), publish, regard, report, shew (forth), (make a) sound, X surely, tell, understand, whosoever (heareth), witness.

Here is a much more in-depth definition although I am pretty sure it will be ignored:

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions with KJV
H8085 שָׁמַע shâma‛
BDB Definition:
1) to hear, listen to, obey (verb)
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to hear (perceive by ear)
1a2) to hear of or concerning
1a3) to hear (have power to hear)
1a4) to hear with attention or interest, listen to
1a5) to understand (language)
1a6) to hear (of judicial cases)
1a7) to listen, give heed
1a7a) to consent, agree
1a7b) to grant request
1a8) to listen to, yield to
1a9) to obey, be obedient
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be heard (of voice or sound)
1b2) to be heard of
1b3) to be regarded, be obeyed
1c) (Piel) to cause to hear, call to hear, summon
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to cause to hear, tell, proclaim, utter a sound
1d2) to sound aloud (musical term)
1d3) to make proclamation, summon
1d4) to cause to be heard
2) sound (noun masculine)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2412, 2412a
Total KJV Occurrences: 1149

This word primarily means to hear circumspectly (by paying close attention), to hear with understanding, to hear with intelligence, to diligently hear, etc., etc.

Like I already said above: for the KJV to render this word as OBEY, so many times throughout the Torah, is nothing short of smoking gun evidence of a KJV antinomian bias from the very start.

Jack · Jun 8, 2026

dak said:
Stuck on obey after what I stated?

First KJV occurrence of OBEY in the Torah:

Exodus 5:2 KJV
2 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey [H8085] his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.

Here is the simple definition:

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H8085 שָׁמַע shama` (shaw-mah') v.
1. to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc).
2. (causatively) to tell, etc.
[a primitive root]
KJV: X attentively, call (gather) together, X carefully, X certainly, consent, consider, be content, declare, X diligently, discern, give ear, (cause to, let, make to) hear(-ken, tell), X indeed, listen, make (a) noise, (be) obedient, obey, perceive, (make a) proclaim(-ation), publish, regard, report, shew (forth), (make a) sound, X surely, tell, understand, whosoever (heareth), witness.

Here is a much more in-depth definition although I am pretty sure it will be ignored:

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions with KJV
H8085 שָׁמַע shâma‛
BDB Definition:
1) to hear, listen to, obey (verb)
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to hear (perceive by ear)
1a2) to hear of or concerning
1a3) to hear (have power to hear)
1a4) to hear with attention or interest, listen to
1a5) to understand (language)
1a6) to hear (of judicial cases)
1a7) to listen, give heed
1a7a) to consent, agree
1a7b) to grant request
1a8) to listen to, yield to
1a9) to obey, be obedient
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be heard (of voice or sound)
1b2) to be heard of
1b3) to be regarded, be obeyed
1c) (Piel) to cause to hear, call to hear, summon
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to cause to hear, tell, proclaim, utter a sound
1d2) to sound aloud (musical term)
1d3) to make proclamation, summon
1d4) to cause to be heard
2) sound (noun masculine)
Part of Speech: see above in Definition
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: a primitive root
Same Word by TWOT Number: 2412, 2412a
Total KJV Occurrences: 1149

This word primarily means to hear circumspectly (by paying close attention), to hear with understanding, to hear with intelligence, to diligently hear, etc., etc.

Like I already said above: for the KJV to render this word as OBEY, so many times throughout the Torah, is nothing short of smoking gun evidence of a KJV antinomian bias from the very start.

Your smoke screen noted! So you don't know anyone who obeys Moses. Neither do I!

dak · Jun 8, 2026

Jack said:
Your smoke screen noted! So you don't know anyone who obeys Moses. Neither do I!

The Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts teaches me how to walk in the Torah pleasing unto the Father. Paul his servant and apostle also does the same, for he teaches the commandments of the Master, as he says. In fact he informs me that the Torah is spiritual, and I believe him, (Rom 7:14a). Those who do not believe Paul already have their erroneous natural minded interpretations of the Torah from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, which they choose to believe over and above the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts. And being in an even worse state than the Pharisees, they choose those interpretations not to try to fulfill them, but rather in order to have an excuse to abolish the Torah. The natural mind cannot please Elohim because it cannot be subject to His Torah: (re: Rom 8:4-8), for it sees all things of the scripture according to the flesh, the carnal, and the natural world.

Jack · Jun 8, 2026

dak said:
The Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts teaches me how to walk in the Torah pleasing unto the Father. Paul his servant and apostle also does the same, for he teaches the commandments of the Master, as he says. In fact he informs me that the Torah is spiritual, and I believe him, (Rom 7:14a). Those who do not believe Paul already have their erroneous natural minded interpretations of the Torah from the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes, which they choose to believe over and above the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts. And being in an even worse state than the Pharisees, they choose those interpretations not to try to fulfill them, but rather in order to have an excuse to abolish the Torah. The natural mind cannot please Elohim because it cannot be subject to His Torah: (re: Rom 8:4-8), for it sees all things of the scripture according to the flesh, the carnal, and the natural world.

I'll stick with the New Covenant in Jesus' Blood.

Hebrews 8:13
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete.

Why Christians not under the Torah

Active Member

Active Member

Precise Timeline Spitballs​

Nitpicky Biblical/Exegetical Details for Challengers​

Early Church Fathers Quick Hits (for "But tradition says..." pushes)​

Common Challenges & Quick Counters​

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Precise Timeline Spitballs

Nitpicky Biblical/Exegetical Details for Challengers

Early Church Fathers Quick Hits (for "But tradition says..." pushes)

Common Challenges & Quick Counters